Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial

Signe Møller-Bisgaard; Kim Hørslev-Petersen; Bo Ejbjerg; Merete Lund Hetland; Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg; Daniel Glinatsi; Jakob Møller; Mikael Boesen; Robin Christensen; Kristian Stengaard-Pedersen; Ole Rintek Madsen; Bente Jensen; Jan Alexander Villadsen; Ellen Margrethe Hauge; Philip Bennett; Oliver Hendricks; Karsten Asmussen; Marcin Kowalski; Hanne Lindegaard; Sabrina Mai Nielsen; Henning Bliddal; Niels Steen Krogh; Torkell Ellingsen; Agnete H. Nielsen; Lone Balding; Anne Grethe Jurik; Henrik S. Thomsen; Mikkel Østergaard

doi:10.1001/jama.2018.21362

Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial

Signe Møller-Bisgaard^*, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Bo Ejbjerg, Merete Lund Hetland, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg, Daniel Glinatsi, Jakob Møller, Mikael Boesen, Robin Christensen, Kristian Stengaard-Pedersen, Ole Rintek Madsen, Bente Jensen, Jan Alexander Villadsen, Ellen Margrethe Hauge, Philip Bennett, Oliver Hendricks, Karsten Asmussen, Marcin Kowalski, Hanne Lindegaard, Sabrina Mai NielsenHenning Bliddal, Niels Steen Krogh, Torkell Ellingsen, Agnete H. Nielsen, Lone Balding, Anne Grethe Jurik, Henrik S. Thomsen, Mikkel Østergaard

^*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

Institut for Klinisk Medicin

32 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Whether using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves disease activity and slows joint damage progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy vs a conventional clinical treat-to-target strategy improves outcomes in patients with RA in clinical remission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two-year, randomized, multicenter trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Denmark. Two hundred patients with RA in clinical remission (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to an MRI-guided vs a conventional treat-to-target strategy. In the MRI-guided group, the treatment goal was absence of MRI bone marrow edema combined with clinical remission, defined as DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less and no swollen joints. In the conventional group, the treatment goal was clinical remission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Co-primary outcomeswere proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and with no radiographic progression (no increase in total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) at 24 months. Significance testing for the primary outcome was based on 1-sided testing. Secondary outcomes were clinical and MRI measures of disease activity, physical function, and quality of life. RESULTS Of 200 patients randomized (133 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 61.6 [10.5] years; median baseline DAS28-CRP, 1.9 [interquartile range, 1.7-2.2]; van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, 18.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-42.5]), 76 patients (76%) in the MRI-guided group and 95 (95%) in the conventional group completed the study. Of these, 64 (85%) vs 83 (88%), respectively, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, -4.8%[1-sided 95%CI, -13.6%to + ∞; 1-sided P = .19]) and 49 (66%) vs 58 (62%), respectively, reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7%[1-sided 95%CI, -7.0% to + ∞; 1-sided P = .25). Of 10 key secondary end points, 8 were null and 2 showed statistically significant benefit for the MRI treat-to-target group. Seventeen patients (17%) in the MRI-guided treat-to-target group and 6 patients (6%) in the conventional treat-to-target group experienced serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA in clinical remission, an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy did not result in improved disease activity remission rates or reduce radiographic progression. These findings do not support the use of an MRI-guided strategy for treating patients with RA.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Vol/bind	321
Udgave nummer	5
Sider (fra-til)	461-472
ISSN	0098-7484
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.21362
Status	Udgivet - 2019

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1001/jama.2018.21362

Citationsformater

Møller-Bisgaard, S., Hørslev-Petersen, K., Ejbjerg, B., Hetland, M. L., Ørnbjerg, L. M., Glinatsi, D., Møller, J., Boesen, M., Christensen, R., Stengaard-Pedersen, K., Madsen, O. R., Jensen, B., Villadsen, J. A., Hauge, E. M., Bennett, P., Hendricks, O., Asmussen, K., Kowalski, M., Lindegaard, H., ... Østergaard, M. (2019). Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 321(5), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.21362

Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial. / Møller-Bisgaard, Signe; Hørslev-Petersen, Kim; Ejbjerg, Bo et al.
I: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Bind 321, Nr. 5, 2019, s. 461-472.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

Møller-Bisgaard, S, Hørslev-Petersen, K, Ejbjerg, B, Hetland, ML, Ørnbjerg, LM, Glinatsi, D, Møller, J, Boesen, M, Christensen, R, Stengaard-Pedersen, K, Madsen, OR, Jensen, B, Villadsen, JA, Hauge, EM, Bennett, P, Hendricks, O, Asmussen, K, Kowalski, M, Lindegaard, H, Nielsen, SM, Bliddal, H, Krogh, NS, Ellingsen, T, Nielsen, AH, Balding, L, Jurik, AG, Thomsen, HS & Østergaard, M 2019, 'Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial', JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, bind 321, nr. 5, s. 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.21362

Møller-Bisgaard S, Hørslev-Petersen K, Ejbjerg B, Hetland ML, Ørnbjerg LM, Glinatsi D et al. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2019;321(5):461-472. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.21362

@article{28dfdd4b2bd1440ab42239789aae0c0e,

title = "Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial",

abstract = "IMPORTANCE Whether using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves disease activity and slows joint damage progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy vs a conventional clinical treat-to-target strategy improves outcomes in patients with RA in clinical remission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two-year, randomized, multicenter trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Denmark. Two hundred patients with RA in clinical remission (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to an MRI-guided vs a conventional treat-to-target strategy. In the MRI-guided group, the treatment goal was absence of MRI bone marrow edema combined with clinical remission, defined as DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less and no swollen joints. In the conventional group, the treatment goal was clinical remission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Co-primary outcomeswere proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and with no radiographic progression (no increase in total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) at 24 months. Significance testing for the primary outcome was based on 1-sided testing. Secondary outcomes were clinical and MRI measures of disease activity, physical function, and quality of life. RESULTS Of 200 patients randomized (133 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 61.6 [10.5] years; median baseline DAS28-CRP, 1.9 [interquartile range, 1.7-2.2]; van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, 18.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-42.5]), 76 patients (76%) in the MRI-guided group and 95 (95%) in the conventional group completed the study. Of these, 64 (85%) vs 83 (88%), respectively, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, -4.8%[1-sided 95%CI, -13.6%to + ∞; 1-sided P = .19]) and 49 (66%) vs 58 (62%), respectively, reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7%[1-sided 95%CI, -7.0% to + ∞; 1-sided P = .25). Of 10 key secondary end points, 8 were null and 2 showed statistically significant benefit for the MRI treat-to-target group. Seventeen patients (17%) in the MRI-guided treat-to-target group and 6 patients (6%) in the conventional treat-to-target group experienced serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA in clinical remission, an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy did not result in improved disease activity remission rates or reduce radiographic progression. These findings do not support the use of an MRI-guided strategy for treating patients with RA.",

author = "Signe M{\o}ller-Bisgaard and Kim H{\o}rslev-Petersen and Bo Ejbjerg and Hetland, {Merete Lund} and {\O}rnbjerg, {Lykke Midtb{\o}ll} and Daniel Glinatsi and Jakob M{\o}ller and Mikael Boesen and Robin Christensen and Kristian Stengaard-Pedersen and Madsen, {Ole Rintek} and Bente Jensen and Villadsen, {Jan Alexander} and Hauge, {Ellen Margrethe} and Philip Bennett and Oliver Hendricks and Karsten Asmussen and Marcin Kowalski and Hanne Lindegaard and Nielsen, {Sabrina Mai} and Henning Bliddal and Krogh, {Niels Steen} and Torkell Ellingsen and Nielsen, {Agnete H.} and Lone Balding and Jurik, {Anne Grethe} and Thomsen, {Henrik S.} and Mikkel {\O}stergaard",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.1001/jama.2018.21362",

language = "English",

volume = "321",

pages = "461--472",

journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",

issn = "0098-7484",

publisher = "American Medical Association",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis

T2 - The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial

AU - Møller-Bisgaard, Signe

AU - Hørslev-Petersen, Kim

AU - Ejbjerg, Bo

AU - Hetland, Merete Lund

AU - Ørnbjerg, Lykke Midtbøll

AU - Glinatsi, Daniel

AU - Møller, Jakob

AU - Boesen, Mikael

AU - Christensen, Robin

AU - Stengaard-Pedersen, Kristian

AU - Madsen, Ole Rintek

AU - Jensen, Bente

AU - Villadsen, Jan Alexander

AU - Hauge, Ellen Margrethe

AU - Bennett, Philip

AU - Hendricks, Oliver

AU - Asmussen, Karsten

AU - Kowalski, Marcin

AU - Lindegaard, Hanne

AU - Nielsen, Sabrina Mai

AU - Bliddal, Henning

AU - Krogh, Niels Steen

AU - Ellingsen, Torkell

AU - Nielsen, Agnete H.

AU - Balding, Lone

AU - Jurik, Anne Grethe

AU - Thomsen, Henrik S.

AU - Østergaard, Mikkel

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - IMPORTANCE Whether using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves disease activity and slows joint damage progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy vs a conventional clinical treat-to-target strategy improves outcomes in patients with RA in clinical remission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two-year, randomized, multicenter trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Denmark. Two hundred patients with RA in clinical remission (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to an MRI-guided vs a conventional treat-to-target strategy. In the MRI-guided group, the treatment goal was absence of MRI bone marrow edema combined with clinical remission, defined as DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less and no swollen joints. In the conventional group, the treatment goal was clinical remission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Co-primary outcomeswere proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and with no radiographic progression (no increase in total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) at 24 months. Significance testing for the primary outcome was based on 1-sided testing. Secondary outcomes were clinical and MRI measures of disease activity, physical function, and quality of life. RESULTS Of 200 patients randomized (133 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 61.6 [10.5] years; median baseline DAS28-CRP, 1.9 [interquartile range, 1.7-2.2]; van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, 18.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-42.5]), 76 patients (76%) in the MRI-guided group and 95 (95%) in the conventional group completed the study. Of these, 64 (85%) vs 83 (88%), respectively, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, -4.8%[1-sided 95%CI, -13.6%to + ∞; 1-sided P = .19]) and 49 (66%) vs 58 (62%), respectively, reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7%[1-sided 95%CI, -7.0% to + ∞; 1-sided P = .25). Of 10 key secondary end points, 8 were null and 2 showed statistically significant benefit for the MRI treat-to-target group. Seventeen patients (17%) in the MRI-guided treat-to-target group and 6 patients (6%) in the conventional treat-to-target group experienced serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA in clinical remission, an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy did not result in improved disease activity remission rates or reduce radiographic progression. These findings do not support the use of an MRI-guided strategy for treating patients with RA.

AB - IMPORTANCE Whether using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves disease activity and slows joint damage progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy vs a conventional clinical treat-to-target strategy improves outcomes in patients with RA in clinical remission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two-year, randomized, multicenter trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Denmark. Two hundred patients with RA in clinical remission (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to an MRI-guided vs a conventional treat-to-target strategy. In the MRI-guided group, the treatment goal was absence of MRI bone marrow edema combined with clinical remission, defined as DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less and no swollen joints. In the conventional group, the treatment goal was clinical remission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Co-primary outcomeswere proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and with no radiographic progression (no increase in total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) at 24 months. Significance testing for the primary outcome was based on 1-sided testing. Secondary outcomes were clinical and MRI measures of disease activity, physical function, and quality of life. RESULTS Of 200 patients randomized (133 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 61.6 [10.5] years; median baseline DAS28-CRP, 1.9 [interquartile range, 1.7-2.2]; van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, 18.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-42.5]), 76 patients (76%) in the MRI-guided group and 95 (95%) in the conventional group completed the study. Of these, 64 (85%) vs 83 (88%), respectively, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, -4.8%[1-sided 95%CI, -13.6%to + ∞; 1-sided P = .19]) and 49 (66%) vs 58 (62%), respectively, reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7%[1-sided 95%CI, -7.0% to + ∞; 1-sided P = .25). Of 10 key secondary end points, 8 were null and 2 showed statistically significant benefit for the MRI treat-to-target group. Seventeen patients (17%) in the MRI-guided treat-to-target group and 6 patients (6%) in the conventional treat-to-target group experienced serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA in clinical remission, an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy did not result in improved disease activity remission rates or reduce radiographic progression. These findings do not support the use of an MRI-guided strategy for treating patients with RA.

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2018.21362

DO - 10.1001/jama.2018.21362

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 30721294

AN - SCOPUS:85061060865

SN - 0098-7484

VL - 321

SP - 461

EP - 472

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

IS - 5

ER -

Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater